[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19409-19416]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DEVELOPMENT, RELIEF, AND EDUCATION FOR ALIEN MINORS ACT OF 2010--MOTION 
                               TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume 
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3992, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 19410]]

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 663 (S. 3992) to 
     authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of 
     status of certain alien students who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children, and for other purposes.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Defense Authorization

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have enacted the National Defense 
Authorization Act every year for the last 48 years. We need to do the 
same thing this year.
  This year's bill would continue the increases in compensation and 
quality of life that our service men and women and their families 
deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military 
operations around the world.
  For example, the bill would extend over 30 types of bonuses and 
special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and 
continued service by active-duty and reserve military personnel.
  The bill would authorize continued TRICARE coverage for eligible 
dependents of servicemembers up to the age of 26.
  The bill will improve care for our wounded warriors by addressing 
inequities in rules for involuntary administrative separations based on 
medical conditions and requiring new education and training programs on 
the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in wounded warrior units, and 
it will authorize the service secretaries to waive maximum age 
limitations to enable certain highly qualified enlisted members who 
served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to 
enter the military service academies.
  The bill would also include important funding and authorities needed 
to provide our troops the equipment and support that they will continue 
to need as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. For example, the bill would enhance the military's ability 
to rapidly acquire and field new capabilities in response to urgent 
needs on the battlefield by expanding DOD's authority to waive 
statutory requirements when urgently needed to save lives on the 
battlefield.
  The bill will fully fund the President's request for $11.6 billion to 
train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan police--growing the 
capabilities of these security forces to prepare them to take over 
increased responsibilities for Afghanistan's security by the July 2011 
date established by the President for the beginning of reductions in 
U.S. forces at that time.
  The bill will extend for one more year the authority for the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer equipment coming out of Iraq as our 
troops withdraw to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, 
providing an important tool for our commanders looking to accelerate 
the growth and capability of these security forces.
  The bill also includes important legislative provisions that would 
promote the Department of Defense cybersecurity and energy security 
efforts--two far-reaching initiatives that should help strengthen our 
national defense and our Nation.
  If we fail to act on this bill, we will not be able to provide the 
Department of Defense with critical new authorities and extensions of 
existing authorities that it needs to safeguard our national security. 
For example, without this bill, the Department of Defense will either 
lose the authority it has requested to support counter-drug activities 
of foreign governments, use premium pay to encourage civilian employees 
to accept dangerous assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide 
assistance to the Yemeni counterterrorism unit. A failure by the Senate 
to provide these important authorities could have serious consequences 
for the success or failure of ongoing military operations around the 
world.
  I recognize this bill includes a handful of contentious provisions on 
which there is disagreement in the Senate. Some of those provisions I 
support and others I objected to and voted against in committee.
  One of those provisions is the one that would repeal don't ask, don't 
tell 60 days after the President, the Secretary of Defense, and 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress that 
implementation of repeal is consistent with the standards of military 
readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and 
retention in the Armed Forces.
  The Armed Services Committee held two excellent hearings last week to 
consider the final report of the working group that reviewed the issues 
associated with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
  The report concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve in the 
U.S. Armed Forces without being forced to conceal their sexual 
orientation would present a low risk to the military effectiveness, 
even during a time of war, and that 70 percent of surveyed 
servicemembers believe that the impact on their units would be 
positive, mixed, or of no consequence at all.
  General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified that the 
presumption underpinning don't ask, don't tell is that ``the presence 
of a gay or lesbian servicemember in a unit causes an unacceptable risk 
to good order and discipline.'' Then he said, ``After reading this 
report, I don't believe that's true anymore, and I don't believe a 
substantial majority of our soldiers believe that's true.''
  After considering the report, Secretary of Defense Gates urged 
Congress to pass this legislation this year, so that the repeal of 
don't ask, don't tell could be implemented in a well-prepared and well-
considered manner, rather than by abrupt judicial fiat, which he 
described as ``by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario [he] 
can imagine.''
  To the extent that some of the service chiefs expressed concern about 
the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, their concerns focused on the 
timing of the repeal and adequacy of time to prepare for 
implementation, rather than on repeal itself. Secretary Gates testified 
that he ``would not make his certification until [he] was satisfied, 
with the advice of the service chiefs, that we had in fact mitigated, 
if not eliminated to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to 
unit cohesion and effectiveness.'' All of the service chiefs testified 
that they were comfortable with the ability to provide military advice 
to Secretary Gates and have that advice heard.
  The only method of repeal that places the timing of the repeal and 
the control of implementation in the hands of the military and the 
Department of Defense is the provision contained in this bill. By 
contrast, if don't ask, don't tell is repealed by a court decision, the 
service chiefs will have no influence over the timing of repeal or the 
implementation of the repeal.
  Despite differing views over this and other provisions where there 
are differences of opinion, we should not deny the Senate the 
opportunity to take up this bill, which is so essential for the men and 
women in the military, because we disagree with some provisions of the 
bill. These are legitimate issues for debate, and I believe the Senate 
should debate this. But the only way we can debate and vote on these 
issues is if the Senate proceeds to the bill. The disputed provisions 
can be addressed through the amendment process.
  Madam President, as you well know, this is a crucial matter for 
resolution. Our Presiding Officer has played an instrumental role in 
getting the don't ask, don't tell issue before this body and before the 
country. I commend her for that. We need to resolve it. The only way to 
resolve it is to get to the bill.
  We currently have 50,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
on the ground in Iraq and roughly twice that many in Afghanistan. While 
there are some issues on which we may disagree, we all know that we 
must provide our troops with the support they need as long as they 
remain in harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 will improve the quality of life 
of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need 
to remain the most effective fighting force

[[Page 19411]]

in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message 
that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service.
  This bill runs some 850 pages. The House bill--the counterpart bill--
runs more than a thousand pages. Even if we get 60 votes today to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and even if we 
are able to consider amendments and pass this bill in a few days, it 
will be possibly an insurmountable challenge to work out all of the 
differences with the House. Over the last 10 years, it has taken an 
average of 75 days to conference the Defense authorization bill with 
the House after we pass it. If we don't proceed on this bill this week, 
then invoking cloture sometime next week--even if we can do it--would 
be a symbolic victory. I don't believe there would be enough time to 
hammer out a final bill before the end of the session.
  I don't believe in symbolic victories. This bill is a victory for the 
people in uniform. It is essential for the people in uniform. We should 
not act symbolically in their name and for their sake; we should act in 
reality. But the only way this will be real, and that the repeal of 
don't ask, don't tell--assuming we continue to keep it in the bill--
will be real is if we proceed to this bill this week. We cannot and 
should not delay this vote any longer.
  I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the time on the 
quorum that I will call for be equally divided between both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to speak on a bill that the 
Chair has spearheaded the charge for--and done it with such hard work 
and determination and commitment and vigor--and that is the bill to 
provide health care for our 9/11 heroes, those men and women who at a 
time of war rushed to danger to save lives and protect our freedom.
  We have met with these brave men and women repeatedly. Some of them 
are suffering already with cancers they acquired for their acts of 
bravery. Others know it is an almost certainty that they will come down 
with similar diseases and illnesses that are extremely costly to fight.
  Madam President, we have had a grand tradition in America: Those who 
risk their lives to protect us and volunteer to do it under no 
compunction, we remember them when they get hurt in that brave 
endeavors. We do it for our veterans and we should be doing it for our 
9/11 heroes--the first responders, the police, the firefighters, the 
EMT workers, the construction workers, and the ordinary citizens who 
rushed into danger at a time when no one knew how many people might be 
living and entrapped in those collapsed towers.
  I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this 
should not be a moment of politics. One can come up with reason after 
reason why not to vote for this bill, and we have heard many and the 
reasons keep changing. But one fact doesn't change: There are those who 
need help and who deserve our help--from New York, New Jersey, 
Connecticut, and from every other State of the Union. To them, a 
parliamentary decision that we can't vote on this because there is 
another bill we want to vote on first, because we would change this or 
that, is going to ring very hollow.
  This should not be a partisan issue. This should be an issue where 
America unites. When it comes to helping our veterans, we are united. 
That is not a Democratic or Republican issue. That is not a northeast 
or southwest issue. It is an issue of being an American. This vote is 
about being an American because from the days at Bunker Hill, when the 
patriots put down their plows and took up muskets to defend and create 
our freedom, we have always tried to take care of them, and we have 
done it better and better for our veterans. The heroes of 9/11 are no 
different.
  So I beg, I plead, I implore two brave colleagues from the other side 
to join us. Put aside the political considerations. Remember what these 
people did for us. You have seen them when they have visited your 
offices, the suffering, all for an act of voluntary heroism. They are 
not asking for welfare. They are not asking for a huge handout. They 
are simply asking that they be able to meet the high health care costs 
that occur when you develop cancers and other illnesses because 
particles of glass and cement and other materials get lodged in your 
lungs or your gastrointestinal tract.
  So this is our last call. It is a plea. We will keep at this, but 
today is the day to step to the plate. I urge my colleagues to please 
support those brave men and women who were there for us--for America. 
Do not come up with an excuse as to why you cannot do it. We have 
marched and marched and marched, and this is the finish line. Help us 
get over it, please.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak on the two pending 
votes before the Senate. First, I wish to follow my distinguished 
colleague from New York, whose comments I want to echo regarding the 
Presiding Officer, who has made this one of her passions. She picked it 
up when I first introduced the James Zadroga Act and then took it up 
when she came to the Senate and has done a magnificent job and brought 
us to this moment.
  Jim Zadroga was a New Jerseyan who spent 450 hours at the World Trade 
Center site--a New York City police officer who simply had a paper mask 
on as his only protection. He and so many others who answered on that 
fateful day did not question their personal security, did not give it a 
second thought. They did not think about their health, did not think 
about the potential consequences that would flow from the exposure to 
which they were subjecting themselves. They thought only about 
responding, saving lives, and meeting the Nation's need--the Nation's 
need, not New York's need. For Jim Zadroga and so many others, the 
consequence of that selflessness has been enormous. In many cases, they 
have died. In other cases, they have serious life-threatening 
illnesses. In other cases, they have real disabilities as a result of 
those illnesses.
  I remember on that day, after the attacks on September 11, how we 
came together on the Capitol steps and we declared our commitment of 
love of country and a commitment to those who died on that fateful day, 
to their families, and to those who responded. I remember the 
incredible words--glowing, soaring--that were spoken about the bravery 
of those men and women who responded from all over the country.
  Those who are the victims of the exposure they received on the ground 
on September 11 come from every State in the Union. This is not simply 
a New York issue or a New Jersey issue, where so many of our first 
responders came from. These are individuals who came from across the 
country, who came together as Americans to respond on that fateful day. 
This requires each and every one of us in the Senate to respond to all 
of those Americans from every State who ultimately find themselves, 
through their selflessness, exposed to life-threatening illnesses. A 
grateful nation not only joins together in commemoration on September 
11 of each year but a grateful nation shows its gratitude to those who 
answered the call without concern for their well-being by how we take 
care of their health care, how we take care of their disabilities, and 
how we take care of the families of those who ultimately lost their 
lives in service to the country.
  This is no different than the men and women who wear the uniform of 
the United States and go abroad to defend the Nation. These men and 
women wore uniforms too. Some of them wore

[[Page 19412]]

the uniform of a police officer, some of them wore the uniform of a 
firefighter, some wore the uniform of emergency management personnel. 
Some of them, ultimately, were first-aid squads. But all of them on 
those fateful days wore a uniform that served the Nation. How can the 
Nation forget them now? That is what this vote is all about.
  I cannot accept as a moral equivalent that some oath not to vote on 
those who serve the country, risk their lives, cannot take place 
because of some vote on some tax issue. No one in the Nation would 
believe that it is OK to say: I will not vote to give relief to the 
health of those individuals who sacrificed their health on September 11 
and the days after because I have to wait for some pending tax vote.
  Go back to the men and women who serve this country and look at them 
in their eyes and tell them it is some vote that we are waiting for on 
taxes that determines whether their health needs will be responded to. 
Shameless. I can't wait to see, when one of us stands for one of those 
pictures on the commemoration of September 11, the comments about how 
heroic those individuals were but cannot cast a simple vote.


                             The DREAM Act

  Finally, I want to move to the question of the DREAM Act. On the 
DREAM Act, the House of Representatives took a critical step yesterday 
in making a reality of the dreams and hopes and aspirations of young 
people who know nothing but this country as their country. They made no 
choices in their lives to come to the United States. Those choices were 
made by their parents. All they know is that they stand every day as 
young students and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States 
of America. All they know is the national anthem of the United States. 
All they know is they worked hard and became salutatorians, 
valedictorians, and done everything we expect of any one of us, 
particularly of our children, to try to excel and exceed. 
Overwhelmingly, they have excelled and exceeded. Yet their dream of 
being able to continue to exceed and excel on behalf of the Nation is 
blunted by the fact that they have an undocumented status in this 
country through no fault of their own.
  The DREAM Act says if you are willing to wear the uniform and serve 
in the Armed Forces of the United States, and you serve honorably for 2 
years, we will give you a pathway toward permanent residency. If you go 
to college--assuming that you ultimately qualify, that you are 
accepted, and that you do well--we will give you a pathway to permanent 
residency. We will adjust your status and permit that dream to take 
place.
  This is not amnesty. Amnesty--which I have heard some of my 
colleagues use, and they will use it on anything that is immigration 
related. Right away they roll out the word ``amnesty.'' Amnesty is when 
you get something for nothing; when you did something wrong and you 
have to pay no consequence. In this case I believe wearing the uniform 
of the U.S. Armed Forces, risking your life for your country, maybe 
losing that life before you achieve your goal and your dream, is not 
amnesty. I believe working hard and being educated so you can help fuel 
the Nation's prosperity and meet its economic challenge, that is not 
amnesty. That is paying your dues on behalf of the country. For if you 
do all of that, you still have to wait a decade before your status can 
be adjusted to permanent residency. So you have to be an exemplary 
citizen, you have to do everything that is right, everything we cherish 
in America. That is what the DREAM Act is all about and that is why the 
Secretary of Defense has come out in strong support of the DREAM Act. 
That is why Colin Powell came out in support of the DREAM Act. That is 
why the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness at the Department of 
Defense during the Bush administration, David Chu, came out and said 
this is, in essence, the very effort we would like to see.

       [For] many of these young people . . . the DREAM Act would 
     provide the opportunity of serving the United States in 
     uniform.

  Moreover, university presidents, respected education associations, 
leading Fortune 500 businesses, such as Microsoft, also support this 
legislation. Mike Huckabee explained the economic sense of allowing 
undocumented children to earn their way.
  Let's not stop young men and women who know only this country as 
their country, who made no choices on their own. Let's be family-
friendly. Let's observe the values. Let's pass the DREAM Act today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 4 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the military has a very fine program 
now that allows people legally and illegally in the United States to 
join the military and put themselves on a pathway to citizenship. The 
fact is, in this bill, as it is going to work out in reality, 95 
percent, probably 98 percent of the people who take advantage of this 
amnesty that puts them on a guaranteed path to citizenship will do so 
by claiming they have a high school degree. They can be up to 30 years 
of age. They claim they have a high school degree and then do 2 years 
of community college or even correspondence college work. That is where 
this huge loophole is and that is why we will have 1 to 2 million 
people who are going to seek protection under this act.
  What is this about? The American people understand it. They have 
tried to tell this Congress, but the Congress and the political 
leadership refuse to listen. What they are saying is do not continue to 
reward illegality. Do not continue to provide benefits for people who 
violated our law, please. The first thing you do is don't reward it. 
The second thing you want to do is to end the mass illegality that is 
occurring in our country--600,000 people were arrested last year trying 
to enter our country illegally at the border--600,000. This is a huge 
problem.
  This administration sued Arizona when it tried to do something about 
it. They have ended workplace raids that would have identified people 
who were working illegally and provide Americans an opportunity to have 
a job. This bill will cost $5 billion according to the CBO. It is not 
going to pay for itself, and it allows people with two misdemeanors--if 
you only have two misdemeanors you can apply. Many people, if you know 
much about the law enforcement system in the country, plead to lesser 
offenses when they really are guilty of more serious offenses. A lot of 
these misdemeanors are very serious offenses themselves. They will be 
given the advantage of this act.
  It is not set up for military, it is not set up for valedictorians 
and salutatorians, it is not set up for people going to Harvard. It is 
set up for people who have come into the country, can be brought in 
illegally as a teenager, they go to high school--they have to be 
accepted. They get a GED or get a high school degree, and they apply 
and have a safe harbor in our country indefinitely.
  I introduced yesterday a chart showing a Google page with a whole 
long list of places you can order false high school diplomas, false 
transcripts, false GED certificates. There are no people funded to 
investigate any of this. People are going to walk in and say: I am 30 
years old and I came at age 16. I'm in.
  Who is going to go out and investigate that? Nobody is. There is no 
funding to do it, and there is no plan to do it. It is a major 
loophole.
  But, fundamentally, I would say this Nation will be prepared, as a 
nation, to wrestle with and try to do the right thing about people who 
have been here a long time and who came here as a young person. But let 
me tell you, not until this country brings the lawlessness to an end, 
that is what the American people have told us unequivocally. They shut 
down our switchboards with so many phone calls not too long ago when we 
tried to pass amnesty here. We do not need to do this. Why don't we do 
the responsible thing?
  Finally, let me say this illegality can be ended. It is within our 
grasp if we have leadership from the top and leadership in the Congress 
and leadership from the President.

[[Page 19413]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed his 4 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I say we have not had that 
leadership. What happens 3 years from now when we have another group 
that has come illegally at age 15 or 16 because they have seen what 
happens to the ones who came before? Are we then going to say they 
don't get amnesty? No. We will have lost the moral high ground, the 
right, responsible effort to have a lawful system in America. We are 
surrendering to it if we vote for this bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleagues.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. As Members of this body know, for the past 9 months I 
have come to the floor every week to offer a doctor's second opinion on 
the new health care law. I do this as someone who has practiced 
medicine, taken care of families around the State of Wyoming for a 
quarter of a century.
  Each week I repeatedly criticize another one of the unintended 
consequences of this health care law, a law that I think is bad for 
patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care 
of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers.
  Americans heard how this law breaks most of the President's promises 
about health care reform. That is why, on election day, Americans 
across our country spoke out. They called on Washington to work to 
repeal and replace this law. The Republicans have answered. We realize 
we cannot just object to the law, we must do our best to repeal and 
replace it. That is why I am delighted this morning to be joined on the 
floor by Senator Wicker from Mississippi. He is joining me to talk 
about his new bill that he is introducing today that will allow State 
officials to challenge Federal regulations before these regulations 
actually go into effect. This will allow States to fight back against 
outrageous health care regulations that continue to be written.
  With that, I would like to ask my colleague if he would please share 
with the body and with the country the remarkable bill that he is 
introducing today.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, a 
practicing physician in his own right. I thank my friend for repeatedly 
coming to the floor and simply bringing the facts to the attention of 
our membership and to the American people.
  This was an unpopular piece of legislation when we were considering 
it. We wasted most of a year when we should have been talking about job 
creation and the economy, talking about the overhaul of our entire 
health care system with the ObamaCare proposal. It was unpopular when 
it was enacted. It was unpopular when it was signed into law. We saw 
that in election after election, the two elections in New Jersey and 
Virginia. We saw it in spades in the Massachusetts election where it 
was the central issue. But this Congress persisted against the will of 
the American people.
  Because of the facts as presented by Dr. Barrasso and also the facts 
that are coming to light as the people are finding out in their own 
lives with their own insurance policies, this law is even more 
unpopular and more unsatisfactory than it was at the very beginning, 
and it should be repealed lock, stock, and barrel. It should be 
defunded and it should be replaced by something market driven and 
something workable.
  In an additional attempt to address this very wrongheaded piece of 
legislation, a few moments ago I introduced the Tenth Amendment 
Regulatory Reform Act. To remind my colleagues, the tenth amendment to 
the Constitution explicitly states:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  This amendment, this part of the Bill of Rights, expressly limits the 
powers of the Federal Government for important reasons.
  When we look back to the early days of the United States, it is clear 
that the Founding Fathers believed in a limited Federal Government, 
having just defeated a monarchy with near absolute power. Our Founders 
sought a different way of governing, one based on controlled size and 
scope.
  Our Founding Fathers repeatedly stated their opposition to a Federal 
Government with expansive powers. In Federalist No. 45, James Madison 
wrote:

       The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the 
     Federal Government are few and defined.

  When have we heard that last?
  He goes on to say:

       Those which are to remain in State government are numerous 
     and indefinite.

  This may come as a surprise to people who have viewed the Congress of 
the United States in the past few years. Madison wrote, ``few and 
defined.'' Dispute this fact, congressional limits on the Federal 
Government are rarely enforced today. I hope to change this through my 
legislation.
  Federal agencies routinely usurp the rights of States by promulgating 
regulations that are contrary to the spirit and the letter of the 10th 
amendment to the Constitution. The Code of Federal Regulations now 
totals an expansive 163,333 pages. While some of the rules contained in 
it are necessary, many of them simply are not--adding burdens, 
headaches, and costs for millions of Americans and forcing unnecessary 
Federal spending at a time when the United States borrows 40 cents for 
each dollar we spend. These rules and regulations also take power from 
States and they take power from individual Americans. This bill would 
allow States to challenge unconstitutional mandates before these 
mandates take effect.
  Much of the new health care law gives unelected bureaucrats the power 
to write rules and regulations required to implement ObamaCare. 
Overall, the new health care law creates 159 bureaucracies, according 
to a study by the Joint Economic Council. Countless Federal regulations 
will have to be written to implement the law.
  A requirement for Americans to purchase government-approved health 
insurance--a central piece of ObamaCare--explicitly oversteps the 10th 
amendment. Under no other circumstances do we force individuals to pay 
for something they may not want or cannot afford, simply because they 
are Americans, which is what this law attempts to do.
  Many rules and regulations will be required to implement this 
provision. According to one analysis, the Internal Revenue Service will 
need to hire 16,000 new IRS employees to enforce this individual 
mandate. Each of those bureaucrats will be governed by agency rules 
created in the coming months and years, and we read in the paper today 
that it may even be decades before all of these rules will be created.
  Once these regulations are written, it will again require costly and 
time-consuming court proceedings to overturn them. Instead of forcing 
the American people to wait for a remedy, we should have agencies 
address these problems at the outset. This bill would go a long way 
toward doing that. It would provide special standing for designated 
State government officials to dispute regulations issued by 
administration agencies attempting to implement new Federal laws or 
Presidential Executive orders. Under the legislation, any rule proposed 
by a Federal agency would be subject to constitutional challenges if 
certain State officials determine the rule infringes on powers reserved 
to the States under the 10th amendment.
  States are already challenging the massive Federal takeover in court 
because of the mandates on both States and individuals. I am proud to 
say that 43 of the 50 States have either joined lawsuits or taken other 
official action to stop its unconstitutional provisions. This bill 
would give State officials another tool at their disposal to challenge 
the unconstitutional overreach of the Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation. It is late in 
this Congress, but there is another one looming

[[Page 19414]]

with reinforcements coming from the people.
  I appreciate my colleague allowing me to join him today in this 
discussion of a doctor's second opinion.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I am very impressed by what the Senator have come 
up with. This leadership position takes that next step forward to 
protect our rights that he and I believe are in the Constitution and 
apply to the people of our States and apply to the people of this 
country.
  One would hope everyone would join in, and I ask unanimous consent to 
be added as an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The Senator mentioned the unelected bureaucrats in our 
comments. There was a story today in the New York Times. I would like 
to ask a couple of questions of the Senator from that story because I 
think it gets to the point he is making. This was by Eric Lichtblau and 
Robert Pear.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record this story from today's New York Times.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Dec. 8, 2010]

               Washington Rule Makers Out of the Shadows

                  (By Eric Lichtblau and Robert Pear)

       Washington.--Federal rule makers, long the neglected 
     stepchildren of Washington bureaucrats, suddenly find 
     themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work 
     out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care 
     regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans.
       In Bethesda, Md., more than 200 health regulators working 
     on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors 
     of a suburban office building, paying almost double the 
     market rate for the space in their rush to get started.
       Executives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been 
     meeting almost daily with financial rule makers to air 
     concerns about regulations they say threaten to curtail 
     commerce.
       And at the White House, senior officials receive several 
     status reports a week on a process that all sides agree has 
     vast implications for the country as a whole and for the 
     Obama administration's political fortunes.
       The boom in rule-making--the bureaucratic term for the 
     nitty-gritty of drafting regulations--is a result of the 
     mega-bills approved by Congress this year at the urging of 
     President Obama: the health care bill signed into law in 
     March, and the financial overhaul law signed in July.
       ``There has never been a period like what we are going 
     through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of 
     rule-making,'' said Paul Dennett, senior vice president of 
     the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large 
     employers.
       And what was already shaping up as a rancorous lobbying 
     battle over the rules is likely to become more contentious 
     when Republicans take control of the House, having been swept 
     to power on a pledge to influence health care and financial 
     regulation.
       At the very least, Republicans will be able to hold public 
     hearings to spotlight financial regulations they see as too 
     restrictive and health care rules they see as too disruptive, 
     and they could pressure regulators to soften them.
       The debate over federal spending has already slowed the 
     development of financial rules, as hundreds of new rule-
     making positions have gone unfilled because of a lack of new 
     financing.
       Congress provided a road map for measures aimed broadly at 
     getting more Americans covered by health insurance and 
     providing more federal safeguards against risky financial 
     practices. But the laws were so broad and complex that 
     executive-branch regulators have wide leeway in determining 
     what the rules should say and how they should be carried out.
       In all, the bills call for drafting more than 300 separate 
     rules on a rolling schedule by about 2014, plus dozens of 
     other studies and periodic reports. That may be only the 
     beginning. A recent report from the Congressional Research 
     Service said the publication of rules under the health care 
     law could stretch out for decades to come.
       Regulators at various agencies are trying to answer 
     questions like these:
       How much should a credit-card company be able to charge a 
     shopkeeper for administrative fees when you swipe your card 
     for a purchase?
       Which types of financial companies are so ``systemically 
     important'' to the overall economy that they should be 
     subject to greater federal oversight?
       What services must be covered by all insurers as part of 
     the ``essential health benefits'' package? And at what point 
     would an increase in an insurer's premiums be considered so 
     ``unreasonable'' that state and federal regulators could step 
     in?
       These and many other questions are now in the hands of 
     government lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, actuaries 
     and other regulatory specialists. With the rules spread 
     across agencies, no one is certain how many employees are 
     working on them, but the number is certainly in the hundreds 
     or higher.
       At the Federal Reserve, for instance, most of more than 50 
     lawyers in the legal division are now spending significant 
     parts of their days on rule-making issues, like the question 
     of how to carry out and enforce the so-called Volcker Rule, 
     named for Paul A. Volcker, the former Fed chairman, 
     restricting banks from making certain types of speculative 
     investments.
       No longer are these considered arcane questions that draw 
     scrutiny only from the few Washingtonians who read the 
     ``notices of proposed rule-making'' in the Federal Register.
       These days, the rule makers are attracting attention from 
     Congressional officials, industry advocates and lobbyists, 
     with dozens of executives from firms like Goldman Sachs, 
     Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase and Credit Suisse meeting with 
     federal regulators recently to give input on specific rules 
     and try to influence the outcome, according to public online 
     postings by federal regulators on many of the meetings.
       ``I wake up in the morning thinking about this stuff, and I 
     go to sleep at night thinking about it,'' said Tom Quaadman, 
     a senior Chamber of Commerce executive who is leading a group 
     of 10 staff members seeking to shape the financial rules.
       The discussions are in the early stages.
       But though all sides talk of finding consensus, conflicts 
     have emerged.
       The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, made 
     up of leading chief executives, are suing the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission, arguing that a rule giving proxy access 
     on corporate boards to small shareholders did not get a 
     proper review and would undermine companies.
       When these issues still rested with Congress this year, the 
     chamber spent millions on glitzy advertisements opposing the 
     health care and financial regulation. The chamber does not 
     plan anything so showy as the debate shifts to the regulatory 
     agencies, but is bracing for a long fight filled with low-key 
     meetings and court filings.
       ``It's a substantial amount of resources we've brought to 
     bear on this,'' Mr. Quaadman said. ``We've always seen this 
     as being a marathon. This is a process that's going to take 
     years, and this is the start of the race.''
       The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by 
     Congress as part of the financial overhaul, has been the 
     target of particularly intense lobbying, with industry 
     representatives and consumer advocates trying to shape the 
     agency's structure and mission.
       Questions about the agency's allegiances have already 
     arisen, however, after it was disclosed that Elizabeth 
     Warren, the White House aide chosen to start up the agency, 
     had worked as a consultant on a lawsuit involving major banks 
     and credit-card companies and that one of her senior aides 
     had worked previously at a mortgage company with a spotty 
     record.
       So far, health care regulators have a head start on their 
     financial counterparts. They not only started the process 
     four months earlier when the health care bill passed 
     Congress, but they also have the advantage of already 
     securing start-up funds for rule-making personnel and office 
     space.
       In Bethesda, health care officials are leasing more than 
     70,000 square feet of space on three floors of an office 
     building for about 230 employees to work on rule-making and 
     other duties. The government agreed to pay $51.41 per usable 
     square foot of space, compared with an average of $27 in 
     Bethesda, because it wanted to get the operation running in 
     July, officials said.
       In contrast, financial regulators have been unable to get 
     new financing for hundreds of additional rule makers because 
     Congress has not yet passed a budget, and they are largely 
     making do by reassigning existing staff members. Officials at 
     agencies like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which 
     is responsible for drafting more than 60 rules, are warning 
     that there is an urgent need for the money.
       Annette L. Nazareth, a former S.E.C. official who now 
     represents financial clients before rule makers as a lawyer 
     for the firm of Davis Polk, said short staffing and ``wildly 
     unrealistic'' deadlines set by Congress threatened the entire 
     process.
       ``These regulators are overwhelmed, and this stuff is being 
     churned out on issues that are enormously complex,'' Ms. 
     Nazareth said. ``It's very bad for the markets to do it this 
     way, and it's bound to have an impact on how things come 
     out.''

  Mr. BARRASSO. It talks about Federal rulemakers. That is whom I 
believe we are talking about, these unelected bureaucrats.

       Federal rule makers, long the neglected stepchildren of 
     Washington bureaucrats, suddenly find themselves at the 
     center of power--


[[Page 19415]]


  The bureaucrats--

     as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping 
     financial and health care regulations that will ultimately 
     affect most Americans.

  We are talking about not just the health care law but also the 
financial regulations.
  The one part I want to ask the Senator about says:

       But the laws were so broad and complex that executive-
     branch regulators will have wide leeway in determining what 
     the rules should say and how they should be carried out.

  Well, isn't that why we need this piece of legislation--to let the 
States get in there before some of these rules and regulations are put 
onto the people of Mississippi, the people of Wyoming, the people all 
across the country?
  Mr. WICKER. Well, the Senator is absolutely correct. And this coming 
from the New York Times in particular, this article is an astounding 
bit of information for the American people, and they need to know about 
it. I think the American people have the quaint idea that their elected 
officials, both in the executive branch and in the legislative branch, 
should be the center of power. I did not come to Washington to be 
powerful. But at least I have to stand before my constituents every so 
often and get their approval. What this article says is that the 
bureaucrats are now at the center of power because of this ObamaCare 
legislation and the financial services legislation.
  We have enacted, over my vote and over the vote of the Senator from 
Wyoming, a 2,700-page health care overhaul. Yet we are told the main 
thing it does is empower bureaucrats and make them the decisionmakers. 
Certainly, if this is the result of this unfortunate piece of 
legislation, a Governor or a speaker of the house of representatives at 
the State level ought to be able to quickly and expeditiously go to 
Federal court and say: Wait a minute, this violates the 10th amendment. 
All we are saying is that they need a path to go quickly to the Federal 
courts and challenge this.
  I am sure the Senator noticed this--this is just one example. In 
neighboring Bethesda, MD, this new ObamaCare law has resulted in 200 
health regulators rushing to a new facility there and paying twice the 
fair market value. This is Uncle Sugar coming in. They can pay as much 
money as they want. So they pay twice the fair market value in rent, 
and they have taken over three floors of a suburban office building to 
begin getting started on actually writing the rules that will apply 
this Federal mandate to the people. It is amazing.
  You know, actually, I will say this to my friend: When we talk about 
defunding the Federal Government, I would like for our Appropriations 
Committees, our investigative committees, both House and Senate, to 
look at how they got the right to pay twice the fair market value.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it is astonishing. I know the people of Wyoming 
as well as the people of Mississippi always oppose Washington's 
wasteful spending, but when I read that the health care officials are 
leasing more than 70,000 square feet of space on three floors of this 
office building in Bethesda for 230 employees, rushing to rulemaking, 
and see that the government--Washington--agreed to pay over $51 per 
usable square foot, compared with the average of less than $30 a square 
foot in Bethesda--why? Because it wanted to get the operation running 
in July. They were rushing to get to this.
  But it says that this may only be the beginning. This may only be the 
beginning. A recent report--not by my colleague from Mississippi and 
not by me but by the Congressional Research Service--says that the 
publication of rules under the health care law could stretch out for 
decades to come.
  That is why I am going to cosponsor this legislation. I have great 
concern about States rights and individual rights being trampled on by 
a Washington government that is out of control in terms of spending, 
and it is doing it in spite of the cries of the American people.
  So I congratulate and compliment my colleague from Mississippi for 
bringing this piece of legislation to the Senate today and thank him 
for joining me on the floor as part of a doctor's second opinion 
because you don't have to be a doctor to know that this health care law 
is not good for patients, it is not good for providers, it is not good 
for taxpayers. As more and more people see the rules and the 
regulations come, they will once again see the broken promises by this 
President, who said: If you like your health care program, you get to 
keep it, and then they turn 2 pages in the rules and regulations into 
121 pages which said, for many people in this country, they are not 
going to be able to keep what they have, they are not going to be able 
to keep what has been promised them, and it is because the rules and 
the regulations are so complicated. And the rulemaking continues.
  Mr. WICKER. If I might add, this is really a new chapter in the 
history of the American Federal Government. According to the senior 
vice president of the American Benefits Council:

       There has never been a period like what we are going 
     through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of 
     rule-making.

  My friend, this is unprecedented in American history. The scope, the 
cost, the magnitude of this legislation is unprecedented, according to 
the American Benefits Council. And the point of my bill is that that 
does violence to the Bill of Rights, it does violence to the intent of 
the Founding Fathers that the Federal Government be limited in its 
power and scope and that we leave most of the rights we are endowed 
with by our creators to the people and to the States themselves. So it 
is a great privilege to join my colleague today in making this point.
  Mr. BARRASSO. With that, I thank and congratulate my colleague for 
his vision and his foresight and his leadership because this is, I 
believe, how the Founding Fathers would have seen it. I believe those 
who wrote the Constitution would be on board with this piece of 
legislation to say, as the 10th amendment does say, ``The powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by 
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people.''
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to strongly urge my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to oppose cloture on the so-
called DREAM Act. That will be one of our votes in a few minutes. All 
these votes are important. That is the most important.
  The reasons we should oppose cloture are simple and basic. They all 
go to this past election. They all ask the question: Have we been 
listening at all to the American people? The American people have been 
speaking loudly and clearly on issues that pertain to the DREAM Act. I 
point to three in particular.
  No. 1, the DREAM Act is a major amnesty provision. There are no two 
ways about it. It grants at least 2.1 million illegals amnesty. It puts 
them on a path toward citizenship, which will also allow them to have 
their family members put in legal status. That means when we count all 
those people, there are probably two to three times that initial 2.1 
million people who will be granted some form of amnesty. When we are 
not securing our borders adequately, when we are not putting a system 
in place to enforce workplace security, that is absolutely wrong.
  No. 2, we are in the middle of a serious recession. The American 
people are hurting. Things such as slots at public colleges and 
universities, things such as financial aid for those positions are very 
scarce and very sought after,

[[Page 19416]]

more than ever before, because of the horrible state of the economy. 
These young illegals who would be granted amnesty would be put in 
direct competition with American citizens for those scarce resources. 
Are we listening to the American people about the struggles they are 
going through right now in this desperate economy? If we do that, the 
answer would clearly be no.
  Third, what about spending and debt? The American people have been 
speaking to us loudly and clearly about that. Yet the DREAM Act would 
increase spending and deficit and debt. Would we be listening to the 
American people about that, were we to pass the DREAM Act? Absolutely 
not. The DREAM Act has at least $5 billion of unpaid-for spending in 
it, by all reasonable estimates. If we grant amnesty to 2.1 million 
people and then down the road we double or triple that when counting 
family members, of course, there is cost to that in terms of Federal 
Government benefits and programs and spending. Reasonable estimates say 
that is at least $5 billion of cost, unpaid for, increasing spending, 
increasing deficit, increasing debt. If we did that by passing the 
DREAM Act, would we be listening to the American people? Absolutely 
not.
  Let's come to the Senate Chamber and perform our first and most 
solemn duty, which is to listen to the American people, listen to the 
citizens of the States, and truly represent them in this important 
body. Let's listen to them when they say no amnesty. Let's listen to 
them when they say how difficult their lives are in this horrible 
economy. Let's listen to them when they say control spending and 
deficit and debt. Don't increase it yet again.
  I propose we listen to them. I will listen to them and vote no on 
cloture on the DREAM Act.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I said this morning when the Senate came 
into session, the House passed, late last night, the DREAM Act. I have 
asked consent from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
vitiate the cloture vote, and that was not granted this morning, which 
I think is unfortunate because it is a waste of the Senate's time 
because we need to act on a piece of legislation that is already 
passed, so that when we pass it, it would go directly to the President.
  We have been told by my Republican colleagues that they are not 
willing to do any legislative business, which I think is untoward and 
unnecessary and unfair. But that is where they are. So that being the 
case, Mr. President, I would again renew my request that we vitiate the 
vote on cloture that is pending before the Senate at this stage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, hearing the objection, I move to table the 
motion to proceed to S. 3992, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Brownback
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed having been tabled, the 
cloture motion is vitiated.

                          ____________________